The Existence and Attributes Of God

99 posts / 0 new

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 07:27

Devans99

14 billion years ago, everything in the universe was colocated. So at a specific spacetime point, everything was one.

If time was infinite and big bangs occurred naturally, we'd be at infinite matter density by now. So time is finite or there is only one Big Bang.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 07:31

(Reply to #32) #33

Sapporo

Dan: 14 billion years ago,

Dan: 14 billion years ago, everything in the universe was colocated. So at a specific spacetime point, everything was one.
If time was infinite and big bangs occurred naturally, we'd be at infinite matter density by now. So time is finite or there is only one Big Bang.

Do you have any proof that a singularity ever existed? Do you have any evidence that matter was created out of nothing?

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 07:39

(Reply to #33) #34

Devans99

I cannot outright prove the

I cannot outright prove the singularity happened but a lot of evidence points in that direction. The CMB for example.

I have no evidence that matter was created out of nothing but it does not matter to my argument (pardon the pun), there was a start of time either way, see: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/taking-your-advise).

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 08:00

(Reply to #34) #35

LostLocke

Again, no.

Again, no.
Spacetime is the *result* of expansion. Space didn't expand from a point in space, expansion is what made space to begin with.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 08:37

(Reply to #35) #36

toto974

"That would mean a infinite

"That would mean a infinite matter density", you are saying that. An infinite matter density can be obtained with any quantity of matter placed in a null volume.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 06:52

(Reply to #36) #37

David Killens

@Dan

You have not established that time is finite or infinite. Thus you are speculating, and thus your assertion is not 100% proven.

"So one Big Bang or a start of time. Take your pick. Both lead to a first cause."

This is a false dichotomy, there maybe other explanations.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 07:05

(Reply to #37) #38

Devans99

I have established time is

I have established time is finite, see:

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/taking-your-advise

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 04:44

#39

Cognostic

1. You are missing my point;

1. You are missing my point; I am saying that 'nothing' can never have logically existed. So something must have always existed. Existing always in time is an infinite regress so its impossible. Hence a timeless first cause.

I am not missing a damn thing and saying it again DOES NOTHING.
You don't get to imagine a God into existence. You have no idea how to use logic. The cosmological argument is a God of the Gaps argument. We have no idea what was before the big bang, if there was a before the big bang. or if the universe itself is eternal. (Some current theorists actually assert the universe is eternal.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1x9lgX8GaE

Go to 124, The Cyclic Universe.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 05:43

#40

Sheldon

1. You'd need to evidence

1. You'd need to evidence this assertion, as you're told everytime you make it.
2. A deity stretching back forever is also an infinite regress, all you've done here is use a special pleading fallacy. You're also assuming properties of the thing you're arguing for IN YOUR ARGUMENT. This is a begging the question fallacy, and again you've been told this Dan, many many times.
3. Pure assumption, and do you really think this bullet pointed repetition of the Kalam cosmological argument will be treated any differently than your multiple uses previously. Time cannot have a start in the sense you mean either, it's a misnomer, it has a point of origin. The universe could just as easily have existed prior to the big bang in a different non temporal condition we currently don't understand. That assumption is no less valid than yours.
4. Another unevidenced assumption, and again a begging the question fallacy. Like all theists you seem to think unevidenced assumptions gain validity if you prop them up in a line of more unevidenced assumptions. This is little more than an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. We dont know how the universe came to exist IN ITS CURRENT FORM, therefore God. Its nonsense now, as it has been everytime you've used it before.
5. I see a repetition of your claims, but no evidence, just bare assertion. The "cause" is what you're supposed to be arguing for, now you're assuming it in that argument, another begging the question fallacy.
6. The universe is not fine tuned for life. Indeed it is entirely hostile to it. And the what caused it line is of course a text book appeal to ignorance fallacy.

A through E are just subjective assertions. You could literally define anything into existence in this way.

Why do you go away then return with same tired old irrational cliched apologetics that have been thoroughly debunked countless times on here?

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 06:32

(Reply to #40) #41

Devans99

1. That quantum fluctuations

1. That quantum fluctuations respect the conservation of energy is evidence.
2. But a timeless deity is not an infinite regress.
3. In what way is it a repetition of the Kalam cosmological argument? They both argue for a start of time, but they are completely different arguments.
4. So you are saying the Big Bang did not have a cause. Fine. That puts you on a different planet.
5. I'm not assuming a first cause; I'm showing that no first cause leads to an empty universe.
6. Every star has a habitable zone around it. The universe is ideal for life.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 07:08

(Reply to #41) #42

Nyarlathotep

Dan - That quantum

Dan - That quantum fluctuations respect the conservation of energy is evidence.

Actually those fluctuations don't respect the conservation of energy, they happen "off mass shell" which is the 5 dollar phrase meaning it does not respect the conservation of energy.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 07:13

(Reply to #42) #43

Devans99

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

It's a 'temporary fluctuation'. It is still bound by conservation of energy. Anything that appears, disappears too. If you disagree, show me a web link that says QFs violate conservation of energy...

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 07:30

(Reply to #43) #44

Nyarlathotep

Dan - show me a web link that

Dan - show me a web link that says QFs violate conservation of energy

Scientific American - Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy...

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 07:42

(Reply to #44) #45

Devans99

I think the key word is

I think the key word is temporary - like pico seconds - then they disappear. So conservation of energy is maintained. QFs do not create matter that lasts.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 07:53

(Reply to #45) #46

Nyarlathotep

Dan - QFs do not create

Dan - QFs do not create matter that lasts.

Actually that can happen as well, since matter is not conserved on any time scale.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 08:01

(Reply to #46) #47

Devans99

But matter and energy are

But matter and energy are equivalent and energy is conserved. So permanent matter creation seems impossible.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 08:07

(Reply to #47) #48

Nyarlathotep

Dan - But matter and energy

Dan - But matter and energy are equivalent...

absolutely not!

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 08:13

(Reply to #48) #49

Devans99

e=mc^2

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 08:19

(Reply to #49) #50

Nyarlathotep

Dan - But matter and energy

Dan - But matter and energy are equivalent

Nyarlathotep - absolutely not!

Dan - e=mc^2

I don't know how to break this to you Dan: the m in e=mc^2 does not stand for matter.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 08:26

(Reply to #50) #51

Devans99

https://www.encyclopedia.com

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/physics/physics/mass...

"Mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it."

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 08:35

(Reply to #51) #52

Nyarlathotep

@Dan:

@Dan:
Mass and matter are not the same thing. Even what you cites hints at this: "mass...the quantity of matter". Mass is an attribute of a particle, matter is a category of particles. Again they are not the same thing. And that is a good thing since it is empirically known that matter is not conserved!

/e for example: electrons and quarks are matter, but the W&Z bosons are not. Yet all the particles I mentioned have a mass. Clearly mass and matter are NOT the same thing.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 08:43

(Reply to #52) #53

Devans99

But the total energy of the

But the total energy of the system is conserved .So where I argue about infinite matter density, I can just as well argue about infinite energy density.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 08:54

(Reply to #53) #54

Nyarlathotep

Dan - But matter and energy

Dan - But matter and energy are equivalent.....

I'm still waiting for you to retract that statement, before I entertain yet another shifting of the argument. It really isn't that complicated:

energy has dimensions of [M*L^2*T^(-2)]
mass has dimensions of [M]
matter is dimensionless

They ain't the same things, and if you're going to make arguments about them, you should at least know the difference between them; don't you think?

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 09:56

(Reply to #54) #55

Devans99

Mass and energy are

Mass and energy are equivalent (e=mc^2), mass is the measure of matter, so matter and energy are equivalent. Matter is converted to energy in reactions in the sun for example.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 10:09

(Reply to #55) #56

Nyarlathotep

Dan - Matter is converted to

Dan - Matter is converted to energy in reactions in the sun for example.

If you convert matter into non-matter; the amount of matter in your system changes: matter isn't conserved. As you pointed out, the sun does not conserve matter. Matter is experimentally known to not be conserved in high energy applications.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 07:17

(Reply to #56) #57

Sapporo

Dan: 1. That quantum

Dan: 1. That quantum fluctuations respect the conservation of energy is evidence.
2. But a timeless deity is not an infinite regress.
3. In what way is it a repetition of the Kalam cosmological argument? They both argue for a start of time, but they are completely different arguments.
4. So you are saying the Big Bang did not have a cause. Fine. That puts you on a different planet.
5. I'm not assuming a first cause; I'm showing that no first cause leads to an empty universe.
6. Every star has a habitable zone around it. The universe is ideal for life.

You'd waste less of your time if you replaced "deity" with "universe".

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 09:51

(Reply to #57) #58

Sheldon

1. Link the peer reviewed

1. Link the peer reviewed scientific research that evidences your belief in a first cause please, otherwise this is just another of your unevidenced subjective claims. I just checked all the major news networks on not one of them is claiming scientific evidence for a first cause??? Come on Dan, you do this every time, science doesn't evidence a deity, it's absurd for you to pretend it does.
2. Another claim - evidence please, and this is of course yet another begging the question fallacy. You can't make a rational argument for something's existence.. and make assumptions about it's nature in the same argument....sigh.
3. It is the Kalam cosmological argument, do behave Dan, do you think atheists can't Google or something?
4. No I have not said the universe had no cause, do you really think you can reverse the burden of proof and I won't notice, really Dan.
5. You are assuming it in point 5, and you have shown nothing, you've just plagiarised the Kalam cosmological argument, replete with bare assumptions and logical fallacies.
6. Evidence this claim please, then evidence that any other type of universe is possible. Really Dan you've used this tired canard enough times now to know it won't wash. Demonstrate objective evidence for life apart from ours in the universe please. dear oh dear.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 06:02

#59

oldepole

Why are we trying to debate

Why are we trying to debate this person? He/she/it is a believer and as such no one will ever change their mind by logic because he/she/it "feels gawd in their heart". Sorry if this seems a tad blunt but I'm a rather blunt person.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 06:15

(Reply to #59) #60

CyberLN

oldepole, you wrote, “Why are

oldepole, you wrote, “Why are we trying to debate this person? ”

Really? Because it’s a debate forum.

Wed, 04/10/2019 - 08:16

#61

arakish

Fuck me sideways on a donkey

Fuck me sideways on a donkey that talks.

Fucking Dan is back?!?

Dan, are you back to spew that brain diarrhea of yours? Ain't you learned yet from all the spankings you from us? Are you really that sadomasochistic?

Here is a challenge for you. Answer all these questions with legitimate scientifically derived evidence.

Why is God so capable of healing the invisible maladies, like cancer and disease, but is so incapable of healing the visible maladies, such as amputees, persons being horribly burned in an accident, etc.?
- Further Refinement: Why does it ONLY heal the invisible maladies and NOT the visible ones?

If God is omnipotent, then why is it so afraid of just showing itself and making us atheists eat crow?

If God is the epitome of objective morality, then why does it not follow its own morality codes?

If God is omnibenevolent, then why is it so horrendously evil?

If God is omniscient, then why does it speak only one language?

If God does exist, then why is there absolutely no compelling evidence of its existence?

What is God’s gender? If it has a gender, why? If it has no gender, why?

How do incidents go out of God’s control if it is omnipotent, and well aware of everything that has happened and will happen?

Why are there so many flaws in God’s creation if it is omnipotent?

Of this incredibly vast universe, why is God so damned interested in us puny humans?

If God is only love and good, then why does it become so angry and hateful?

Why is God such a voyeur?

Why do most of God’s believers tend to have a lower education level than those whose do not believe?

If God is supposed to be all-loving, then why would it create a place of eternal torment and torture?

Why does God have the traits of a tyrranical totalitarian despot?

If the Theory of Evolution is wrong, then why did God put the vestiges of evolution in the human body and DNA?

Why did God put a great many dinosaurs on the planet, yet did not mention them in any of the scriptures?

If God created this vast universe with billions and billions of other planets which may have life, some possibly as advanced as we are, why is it only interested in us lowly primitive primates?

If God “fine-tuned” this universe for life, then why is almost none of it able to support life?

Why would God create pigs, shellfish, and dogs if it hates them so much?

Why did God create billions of species that are extinct today, if it intended to allow them to go extinct?

If the Theory of Evolution is wrong, then why did God make so much evidence for that Theory?

Why do God’s scriptures have serious scientific and logical fallacies?

Why do God’s scriptures need human interpretors while it said that the scriptures are precise and easily understandable?

Why does God, in the scriptures, sound like nothing but a self-centered narcissistic and megalomanical psychotic sociopath?

If everything needs a reason to exist, what is God’s reason to exist?

Why did God forbid Adam to eat the "fruit" when it already knew that Adam would eat the fruit?

Why is God jealous and angry over the other gods if they do not exist?

Why does God name itself “Jealous?” (Exodus 34:14 For you shall worship no other god; for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)

Why does God punish humans for their actions when God has already predestined those actions?

How could humans be able to abolish slavery while God could not?

Why does God despise women so much when they are the only ones who can bear children to perpetuate the species?

Why does God promise to destroy the planet instead of promising to save it?

Why is there so many unanswered questions around the concept of God?

Why are religious holy books so worthless for answering these questions?

How do you trust a god who has already flooded the world, killed millions by his own hand, allowed countless atrocities, and you trust him to forgive you of your sins just for asking?

Why does God choose as its most vocal advocates, a range of charlatans, crooks, eccentric pranksters, vampiric money hoarder, and foolish liars?

Did god make Adam from clay or dirt? Why did god make Eve from Adam's rib? Why do all fetuses inherently start out as female? And why are all females so evil in its eyes?

Why do all Religious Absolutists give answers that are vague, obfuscated, not even answers, ambiguous, woo woo, uncertain and unclear, bewildered, obscure, enigmatic, confusing, mysterious, cryptic, unbelievable, unfathomable, unintelligible, … … need I add more?

Why is that all Religious Absolutists fail to see the logical fallacy of omniscience versus free will?

Why is it humans are capable of bettering themselves, the further and further they get away from the God ideas?

Why is it that if a woman gives birth to a boy, she will be unclean for seven days, but if she has a girl, she is tainted for fourteen days? Are women polluted by childbirth and girl babies are filthier than boys? (Leviticus 12:1-5 — {1} Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, {2} ‘Speak to the children of Israel, saying, “If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her monthly period she shall be unclean. {3} In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. {4} She shall continue in the blood of purification thirty-three days. She shall not touch any holy thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. {5} But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean fourteen days, as in her period; and she shall continue in the blood of purification sixty-six days.” ’).

God has revealed Himself to us in miraculous ways. Really? When? How? Where? What? Why? To whom? Even if your sky faerie exists, any interaction it may have, or had, in this realm would leave OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Where is it?

If us humans are not "puny," then why are we so easily injured and killed?

If God is so willing to save us, then why does God act like nothing more than a pure evil totalitarian tyrant requiring us to kneel and bow down and kiss its unholy ass with the greatest threat of eternal damnation and torture and torment for not choosing to believe in it?Where is the “free choice”?

$200 says Dan completely ignores this post.

rmfr

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages